Amnesty International – Outline for an EU internal human rights
strategy
Extract from AI’s contribution on the future of EU justice and home
affairs (January 2014)
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
The need for a comprehensive human rights framework strategy and action plan
“To swing the pendulum to the Human Rights direction. I am profoundly
aware of how hard this will be. But, as the Strategic Framework emphasises,
EU Foreign Policy and Human Rights need not be competing goals. Our aim
is to make them complementary (…)”
(EU Special Representative for Human Rights, Brussels, 3 September
2012)
“The adoption of the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and
Democracy represents a watershed in EU policymaking.”
(Council of the EU, EU adopts Strategic Framework on Human Rights and
Democracy, Luxemburg, 25 June 2012)
Despite occasional breakthroughs, the debate on the EU’s performance on human rights
within its own region is consistently obstructed by the – real or perceived – lack of EU
competency to act on behalf of or in place of member states, to preserve and promote the
EU’s founding principles, which include respect for human rights.
Amnesty International believes that a framework strategy enshrining human rights at the core
of the EU’s internal legal and political machinery (including normative and enforcement
powers, as well as political dynamics) would help to overcome this perceived dichotomy
between the EU’s aspiration to promote human rights, and the reality of human rights
violations in member states. By setting common guiding principles for devising and assessing
EU action on human rights, which take into account the specificities of the EU’s legal
framework, this strategy would bring together existing instruments and policies, and provide
direction. A strategy geared towards human rights action would not provide immediate or
magic solutions, but it would help the EU institutions to confront the reality of human rights
violations in member states together, on a common human rights basis. This includes the
development of effective actions to resolve problems, and a measurement tool for building
accountability for what EU tools deliver.
In a joint statement as part of the Human Rights and Democracy Network (HRDN) on
strengthening the EU’s response to human rights abuses inside its own borders, Amnesty
International highlighted the need for a human rights framework strategy.1
Amnesty International’s call is inspired by the ‘EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on
Human Rights and Democracy’, which was adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council in June
2012.2 This is a powerful pledge by all member states, the European External Action Service
(EEAS), the European Parliament (EP) and the European Commission (the Commission) to
advance the protection and promotion of human rights together, and to put human rights at
Human Rights and Democracy Network, Strengthening the European Union’s response to human rights abuses
inside its own borders, August 2013, available at:
http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/Doc2013/HRDN_Statement_EU_response_to_human_rights_abuses_inside_i
ts_own_borders.pdf
2
Council of the European Union, EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, 25
February 2012.
1
1
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
the centre of EU foreign policy. The action plan lays out specific actions, allocating specific
responsibilities to each actor, and including reference to genuine partnership with civil
society. The key principles are endorsement by all actors, and empowerment to act together.
The forthcoming EU accession to the ECHR represents a key opportunity for the EU to embark
on this task. In the spirit of accession, the EU must comply with the obligations set by the
ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). More generally, the
EU must promote the work of the various human rights bodies of the Council of Europe,
including through enhanced cooperation with them.
The upcoming Commission Communication on possible new mechanisms to safeguard the
rule of law in the EU is another opportunity to reinforce the EU’s capacity to abide by articles
2 and 3 TEU and pay specific attention to safeguarding respect for human rights.
Amnesty International suggests that this comprehensive internal human rights strategy (the
strategic framework and the action plan) be built around the four main objectives outlined
below. These objectives should guide and prompt EU action towards the obligation to respect,
protect and fulfill human rights as defined by international human rights law. 3 To be
legitimate and operational, the strategic framework would have to be endorsed by all three
institutions and all member states, committing them to a shared and indivisible responsibility
for implementing the objectives set out in the strategy, alongside their commitment in the
field of EU external relations.
***
1. Develop a strong and comprehensive EU human rights based approach
a) Putting human rights at the heart of all EU policies
The strategic framework and action plan on external relations contains two decisive overall
guiding principles: (1) it assigns clear responsibilities to all relevant EU actors; and (2) it
contains a joint agreement that the EU will promote human rights in all areas of its external
action without exception.
Both aspects are key to ensuring respect and protection of human rights throughout the EU.
Parallel to the comprehensive policy list in the external framework strategy, the internal one
should state a clear political commitment by all EU institutions and member states to protect
and promote human rights in all areas of the EU’s internal competence without exception.
One way to put this commitment into practice is to ensure that human rights impact
assessments are carried out before drafting EU proposals, and that, once the proposals are
drafted, an examination of their compliance with human rights is carried out accurately and
equally across all the Commission’s services.
“International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to
international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to
fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the
enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against
human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the
enjoyment of basic human rights”(website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
International Human Rights Law, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/InternationalLaw.aspx).
3
2
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
Following the Commission’s Strategy on the effective implementation of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in 2010, 4 operational guidance on
how to carry out human rights impact assessments in practice was issued in 2011.5 This
guidance detailed procedures and content for such impact assessments.
The mandate of the Impact Assessment Board (the Board) to control the quality of all the
Commission’s impact assessments includes systematic checks on the human rights aspects of
the assessments submitted to its review. However, the Board is not currently bound to
systematically issue an opinion in this respect. In order to ensure the effectiveness of this
procedure, it would be important to issue such opinions systematically and make them public.
These opinions should address not only the substantive human rights issues raised by the
impact assessment draft, but also review the initial evaluation done by the Impact Assessment
Steering Group on whether the proposal impacts on human rights issues, and when this is the
case, how the procedure outlined in the guidelines was carried out (including the consultation
with Directorate-General (DG) Justice, the inclusion of relevant human rights aspects when
drafting consultation documents, and the engagement with other stakeholders, including the
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and human rights NGOs). 6 In addition,
the annual report issued by the Board should include a dedicated section on human rights
impact assessment.
The Commission’s Strategy on the implementation of the Charter does not foresee any
consultation on human rights aspects during the drafting phase of EU proposals. In order to
ensure that human rights issues raised in the impact assessment stage are duly addressed in
the draft, the Commission should seek advice from external experts, including the FRA,
Council of Europe and civil society experts before adopting its proposal.
Once the Commission proposal is published, all the institutions have a commitment to ensure
that the text remains ‘Charter compliant’ throughout the legislative process. This important
commitment set by the Commission in its Strategy on the effective implementation of the
Charter was further endorsed by the Council7 and the EP. However, greater transparency is
needed to ensure EU institutions are held accountable to respect their commitment. This
implies some level of public access to the various drafts throughout the negotiations and to
the legal opinions issued by EU legal services, as well as more information on referrals for
advice made to the Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons
(FREMP) working party.8 This would enable open expert debates in cases of conflicting
interpretations on human rights issues involved. As with impact assessments, the FRA’s
opinion and advice from the Council of Europe should be sought as a matter of principle.
b) Enhancing EU institutions’ capacity to properly address human rights issues
Communication from the Commission, Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights by the European Union, COM(2010) 573 final.
5
European Commission, Staff Working Paper, Operational Guidance on taking account of Fundamental Rights in
Commission Impact Assessments, 6 May 2011, SEC(2011) 567 final.
6
European Commission, Operational Guidance on taking account of Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact
Assessments, cited above, p. 11 to 13.
7
Council of the European Union, Guidelines on methodological steps to be taken to check fundamental rights
compatibility at the Council's preparatory bodies, 18 May 2011 and Conclusions on the Council's actions and
initiatives for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, 23 May 2011.
8
In its Guidelines on methodological steps to be taken to check fundamental rights compatibility at the Council's
preparatory bodies, cited above, the Council recommends that “If [a] working party is unable to resolve the issues
arising on the compatibility of a particular proposal with the fundamental rights, on a limited case by case basis, it
should seek the advice of the FREMP Working Party (...)” (p. 7).
4
3
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
Reinforcing the EU’s institutional capacity to properly address human rights issues is
necessary to ensure effective processes as described above and further below.
Council of the European Union
Transforming the Council’s ad hoc working group on human rights (originally designed to
negotiate the regulation establishing the FRA) into a permanent FREMP working party was an
important development that followed the adoption of the Stockholm programme and the entry
into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
The challenge is now to enable and empower FREMP to become a strong human rights actor
that can properly lead the Council’s action in the direction of human rights. As outlined in
the joint NGO statement from HRDN on strengthening the EU’s response to human rights
abuses inside its own borders (mentioned above), this implies that FREMP embraces an
ambitious mandate on human rights and broadens the scope of its work in this area, including
by: systematically considering and responding to all reports prepared by the FRA and the EP’s
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE); opening itself up to relevant
third party actors (such as NGOs, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, UN
special mechanisms and treaty bodies) for briefings and exchanges; and initiating a regular
form of engagement with LIBE as its counterpart in the EP with a mandate pertaining to
fundamental rights.9
In addition, the Council should engage in a reporting exercise on internal human rights issues.
The necessary inward looking dimension of such a report in the field of internal EU policies
would require member states accepting some level of peer review in order to enable specific
country examples to find their way in the report, whilst avoiding a “finger pointing” exercise,
largely dependent on the member states’ agenda. The review should take into account
international human rights standards and make use of the various existing UN documents,
such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) documents, as a basis for discussion. To avoid
“finger pointing” the reviews should take place on a regular basis and be based on a set
rotation of member states, in addition to situations where international and European human
rights bodies identify a particular crisis or structural problem in one or several member states.
European Commission
The appointment of a new EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
was an important development, which signaled a change of direction towards justice and
human rights, concomitant with the adoption of the Stockholm programme and the entry into
force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Experience over the last five years has shown that more needs to be done to ensure that this
position fully embraces all human rights related issues and serves as a human rights ‘catalyst’
within the College of Commissioners by:
The network noted that these are already well established practices embraced by the Council Working Party on
Human Rights in foreign relations (COHOM). With particular regards to cooperation with civil society, the Council’s
annual report on Human Rights in the World 2012 specifically stressed the importance that “civil society
representatives regularly engage with the Council Working Party on Human Rights […] and are debriefed on its
conclusions” (Council of the European Union, EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in
2012 (Thematic Reports), 13 May 2013, p. 33).
9
4
Amnesty International European Institutions Office

leading the overall debate on human rights policy, including by critically assessing the
EU’s action on human rights on the internal front, and ensuring coordination and
coherence with EU action on the external front

equally delivering in all the areas assigned to the position (or at least giving due account
of how priorities are decided), and ensuring coordination with the thematic areas assigned
to other Commissioners.
In addition, adequate human rights expertise and resources should be allocated at all levels
throughout all the Commission departments. This should be a priority when assigning posts
and deciding staff rotation.
European Parliament
The EP and its LIBE Committee gained decisive legislative power with the Lisbon Treaty. The
EP has, for example, played a key role in co-deciding with the Council the new standards for
protection of suspects and victims of crime that it had long called for. It defended a
progressive line in that area, whilst also continuing to push proposals like the new horizontal
anti-discrimination directive,10 for which unanimity in the Council remains the rule. Moreover,
LIBE took up important human rights issues neglected by the Council and the Commission
(which usually argued lack of competence). These were: the follow-up of its 2007 inquiry into
the complicity of EU member states in the illegal US-led rendition and detention programmes
– including growing allegations of secret detention in EU countries;11 and the human rights
situation in Hungary – far beyond the scope of the Commission’s intervention.12
All these achievements must be built on to ensure that the EP grows as an influential human
rights actor and fully plays its role in holding EU institutions and member states accountable
for respecting and protecting human rights. This implies the need for more in-house expertise
and resources on justice and human rights issues, as well as greater and more systematic
coordination and dialogue with other EU institutions and bodies, and with external actors,
such as the Council of Europe and NGOs.
c) Strengthening dialogue with civil society
Enhancing the EU’s capacity to properly identify, process and address its internal human
rights challenges requires more transparent and meaningful dialogue with civil society at all
stages. Currently, engagement with civil society does not comply with any uniform
standards.13
European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment
between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, COM/2008/0426 final.
11
European Parliament, Resolution of 11 September 2012 on alleged transportation and illegal detention of
prisoners in European countries by the CIA: follow-up of the European Parliament TDIP Committee report,
2012/2033(INI) and European Parliament, Resolution of 10 October 2013 on alleged transportation and illegal
detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA, 2013/2702(RSP).
12
European Parliament, Resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices
in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012), 2012/2130(INI).
13
A commitment to engage further with and provide more support to civil society organisations has been expressed
by the European Commission in the field of external relations (European Commission, Communication to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions, The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external
relations, COM(2012) 492 final), and welcomed by the Council (Council of the European Union, Conclusions on
“The roots of Democracy and sustainable development: Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external
relations”, 15 October 2012). However, there is still no explicit corresponding engagement in the field of EU
internal policies.
10
5
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
Civil society’s expertise should actively be sought by all three institutions and its input
factored in all human rights monitoring and law and policy making processes. EU actors
should further ensure that they are accountable for the way they deliver on protecting human
rights and reflect on this in its public reporting and evaluation on their human rights work.
As stressed throughout the developments above and below, this notably implies that civil
society should be briefed and debriefed on the EU’s ongoing work, and invited to give expert
input on human rights aspects, upstream and downstream of EU initiatives in the various
policy areas. This includes ensuring active civil society participation in all relevant public
events, such as hearings and seminars. It will also be vital that dialogue with civil society
actors is planned well in advance and genuinely informs policy and legislative decisions.
2. Setting standards to strengthen the EU’s legislative framework on human rights and
remedying existing gaps in protection
“In the European Union, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental
Freedoms (…) constitutes the common basis for the protection of the rights of
suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (…) At the same time, there is
room for further action by the EU to ensure full implementation and respect of the
Convention standards and, where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of the
applicable standards and to raise existing standards. (…) Any new EU legislative acts
in this field should be consistent with the minimum standards set out by the
Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights”.
(Council of the European Union, Resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening
procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, 30
November 2009)
An approach to law-making building on the existing human rights obligations of all member
states, such as the one followed in the field of procedural rights of suspected and accused
persons in criminal proceedings (a similar approach has been later adopted with regards to
victims),14 should guide the EU’s legislative work. It serves to ensure that new legislative
proposals are put forward whenever the approximation of laws can bring added value to the
protection of people’s human rights, and that EU standards never undermine member states
obligations under international and European human rights law.
Regarding the opportunity of setting new standards at EU level, the EU should rely on existing
work from the FRA, the Council of Europe, UN mechanisms and civil society which highlights
gaps in human rights protection at EU and national level. Failure of the EU to follow-up on
authoritative calls for action should be justified on the basis of objective reasons and open to
challenge.
When a proposal is put forward, it is crucial that the standards set are developed in
accordance with relevant international and European human rights law from the outset and
throughout the negotiation process – in line with the commitments following on from the
Commission’s Strategy on the effective implementation of the Charter (see above).
Council of the European Union, Resolution on a roadmap for strengthening the rights and protection of victims,
in particular in criminal proceedings, 9 and 10 June 2011.
14
6
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
After the adoption of new standards, the Commission should make more use of the possibility
of issuing guidelines and roadmaps to help members states comply with relevant human
rights standards when transposing EU legislation at national level.
3. Monitoring human rights in the implementation of EU law
The compliance with human rights of member states’ implementation of EU law remains an
area of concern that needs urgently to be addressed. This crucial aspect is neglected in the
Commission’s Strategy on the effective implementation of the Charter and needs to be
elaborated on further.
It is essential that the Commission takes into due consideration all relevant human rights
issues when reporting on the implementation of EU measures. Reference to international and
European human rights standards as well as data ‘from the field’ including research from the
FRA and ‘shadow reports’ from civil society must underpin the Commission’s assessments.
The Commission should also engage in a transparent dialogue with civil society to identify
problems and challenges on the ground, and discuss together possible EU action to remedy
existing protection gaps.
The Commission’s reports tend to focus on the formal transposition of EU standards into
national law, failing to consider existing gaps and overlooking the human rights implications
which relate to the measures in question. A broader approach is key to properly assessing and
remedying problems on the ground, but also to identifying possible new action that may be
necessary at EU level (see above on strengthening EU standards).15
The Commission’s Annual Report on the effective implementation of the Charter should be
reviewed in order to become an accountability tool to feed into the above process, as opposed
to being a formal activity report on EU action.16 The report could, for instance, bring together
and analyse the main findings of the Commission’ s implementation reports, combined with
findings from relevant reports from other EU institutions, the FRA and external actors,
including Council of Europe bodies; thus providing a critical assessment of EU action on
human rights and identifying possible areas for future work.
4. Preventing and reacting to human rights violations by member states
As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has a leading role to play in making sure that the
EU remains true to its founding ‘values’ and properly anticipates and responds to actual
violations of human rights by member states, in line with articles 2, 3 and 6 TEU. This is
another crucial aspect which is overlooked in the Commission’s current strategy on the
implementation of the Charter.
For instance, Amnesty International has expressed concerns that the upcoming report on the implementation of
the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia will not question the limited scope of the instrument, falling to
take into consideration data and recommendations highlighting substantial shortcomings of the existing instrument
as an effective tool to combat hate crime in Europe (Amnesty International, Submission to the European
Commission and the Council of the European Union on the Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia (Council
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA), October 2013, available at:
http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/Doc2013/AI_submission_EU_FD_racism_and_xenophobia_final_approved.pd
f).
16
Amnesty International, Comments on European Commission 2010 Report on the Application of the EU Charter
of
Fundamental
Rights,
COM
(2011)
160
final,
30
March
2011,
available
at
http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/Doc2011/AI_comments_on_the_Commission_2010_Report_on_the_FR_Char
ter_May_2011_FINAL.pdf
15
7
Amnesty International European Institutions Office

Preventing human rights violations
In order to adequately prevent human rights violations by member states, the Commission
should make more effective use of available mechanisms. This includes, for instance, a more
proactive use of EU pilots. This procedure was introduced in 2008 “to produce quicker and
better answers to questions and solutions to problems” relating to the enforcement of EU
law.17 The idea was to use this method of working to correct infringements of EU law at an
early stage wherever possible without recourse to infringement proceedings.18 This is, in fact,
an opportunity for dialogue and negotiation with member states which should be used to urge
member states to revise their laws and/or practices in cases where the Commission has
spotted signs of systemic human rights violations in the application of EU law. The steps
undertaken on both sides, together with the positive or negative outcome of EU pilots in terms
of human rights violations, should be recorded and publicised.
The Commission should also consider recourse to interim measures, which could be an
effective way to assert the authority of the Commission’s warnings and suspend the
controversial measure in order to avoid any negative impact on the protection of human rights.
In that regard, the two last EP Fundamental Rights Reports recommended establishing a new
‘freezing procedure’ to ensure “that Member States, at the request of the EU institutions,
suspend the adoption of laws suspected of disregarding fundamental rights or breaching the
EU legal order”. 19
In addition to this infringement related procedure, which can be activated only where there is
risk of a human rights violation occurring in an area of EU competence, the EU must follow
up on the EP and civil society recommendations, and stop ignoring article 7 TEU. As stated
by the Commission, article 7 TEU allows the EU to “act not only in the event of a breach of
common values in this limited field [EU law] but also in the event of a breach in an area
where the member states act autonomously”. 20 Whilst the threshold for determining the
existence of a serious and persistent breach of one of the values listed in article 2 TEU and
for triggering sanctions (the ‘penalty mechanism’) is, indeed, unconvincingly high, this should
not stop EU institutions from at least activating the ‘preventive mechanism’, which allows the
EU to confront member states where there is a “clear risk” of such breach (article 7(1) TEU).
This preventive mechanism could be further operationalised: for example, the EU could
establish formalised partnerships with the FRA and the Council of Europe when examining the
existence of a “threat or a risk of serious breach” by a member state of article 2 TEU
principles;21 and consider following up on the idea of issuing a ‘formal notice’ to the member
European Commission, Report from the Commission, EU Pilot evaluation report, COM(2010) 70 final, p. 2.
The procedure was developed on the basis of the communication from the Commission, A Europe of results –
Applying Community law, COM(2007) 502 final. In March 2010 the Commission adopted the first EU Pilot
Evaluation Report (Report from the Commission, EU Pilot evaluation report, cited above).
19
European Parliament, Directorate General for internal policies, The triangular relationship between fundamental
rights, democracy and rule of law in the EU - Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism, p. 46.
20
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based,
COM(2003) 606 final, p. 5.
21
European Parliament, The triangular relationship between fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law in the
EU - Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism, cited above, p. 51.
17
18
8
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
states(s), a proposal that was put forward by the Commission 22 and also endorsed by the EP in
the draft report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU 2012.23

Reacting and putting an end to human rights violations
Infringements proceedings and article 7 TEU could be further used to address ongoing human
rights violations by member states.
In line with its strategy on the implementation of the Charter, the Commission should
proactively and thoroughly uphold its commitment to carry out infringement proceedings to
address human rights violations committed by member states when acting within the scope of
EU law. When activated, the infringement proceedings should aim to secure effective
protection of human rights, “rather than aiming for negotiating settlements with member
states”, as highlighted by the EP.24
Such a commitment should be clearly articulated as part of the Commission’s general policy
on infringement proceedings, for example in the context of a revision of its 2007
Communication.25
This would require that:



a compliance check of national law with human rights is mentioned as a strategic
objective of infringement proceedings
specific guidelines are formulated to make sure that infringement proceedings are
effectively geared towards human rights protection, in all policy areas
infringements concerning violation of human rights are included among the categories to
be prioritised, meaning that they will be dealt with by the Commission “more immediately
and more intensively than others”.26 This shall imply a clear commitment to:
- set tight benchmarks to accelerate the closure of the pre-litigation procedure
- take the matter before the Court of Justice without undue delay whenever a
satisfactory solution is not reached within a reasonable time
- exclude the closure of proceedings ‘for political reasons’ and clearly and publicly
state the grounds of any settlement with member states
- revise the rules on access to documents and on confidentiality in order to ensure
greater transparency of the procedures, especially with respect to the individuals
concerned by the alleged violations, and to persons or organisations that have
engaged with the Commission on the issue
As recalled above, article 7 TEU offers the EU, in addition to a ‘preventive mechanism’, the
power to intervene where a serious breach of one of the common values listed in article 2 TEU
has occurred in any of the member states (the ‘penalty mechanism’). However, due to the very
high thresholds that are needed in the Council to trigger such a procedure, 27 this has been
presented as a ‘nuclear option’ which is very unlikely ever to be used.
See the speech given by Vice-President of the European Commission, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding
at the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, on 4 September 2013, The EU and the Rule of Law – What
next?, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-677_en.htm
23
European Parliament, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Draft report on the
situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2012), 2013/2078(INI).
24
European Parliament, Fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011), 2011/2069(INI), p. 28.
25
Communication from the Commission, A Europe of results – Applying Community law, cited above.
26
Communication from the Commission, A Europe of results – Applying Community law, cited above, p 10.
27
These are unanimity for determining the existence of a serious and persistent breach (article 7(2) TEU) and
qualified majority for imposing sanctions (article 7(3) and (4) TEU).
22
9
Amnesty International European Institutions Office
This approach must be challenged. The EU institutions and member states should assert their
full political commitment to make use of the article 7 TEU ‘penalty mechanism’ whenever
necessary to properly address severe and systemic human rights abuses violating article 2
TEU whatever the field in which the breach occurs. To that end, ongoing discussions on how
to revise and/or better operationalise article 7 TEU must pursue the objective of ensuring that
such a penalty mechanism gains practical relevance as a mechanism that can and should be
used to adequately address serious breaches of any of the common values listed in article 2
TEU, including respect for human rights. Such discussions must build on the 2003
Commission Communication on article 7 TEU28 and reflect the calls from the EP,29 the FRA,30
and civil society.31
***
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based,
cited above.
29
See, recently, European Parliament, Resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards
and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012), and idem, Draft
report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2012), both cited above.
30
Fundamental Rights Agency, FRA Symposium Report, Promoting the rule of law in the European Union, 7 June
2013, available at http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-4th-annual-symposium-report.pdf
31
Amnesty International, Response to the European Commission Communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on
European Union, December 2004, available at
http://www.amnesty.eu/static/documents/AI_response_to_EC_Comm_on_Article_7_of_Treaty_on_EU.doc; Amnesty
International, Comments on European Commission 2010 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights, COM (2011) 160 final, cited above; Amnesty International, Speech at the European
Parliament LIBE Committee Public Hearing on “The Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union: how
to strengthen fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law in the EU”, 5 November 2013, available at
http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/Doc2013/AI_LIBE_Speech_051113_Written_version_FINAL.pdf
28
10